Alternative Change To Wf That Doesnt Negate Existing Work

[LeMoog]

I continually see posts in here about changing wf in such a way that my investment in weapons and frames is removed.

 

Just so we are all on the same page, I enjoy repeatedly potatoing items so they are at their most effective, this costs me both time and money and when someone says "NERF IT" then it often means my investment is lost.

 

How about changing the game without breaking what has already been loved, why not extend what we have rather than throwing it away.

 

To that end can I suggest an alternative approach namely of adding additional parallel solar systems, ones created by these "nerf it" people within each clan so they can have what they want without breaking what I want.

 

1, I would make it so that you could only reach these new stella systems via solar rail and that means being in a clan of more than one person and the clans could set the rules within their Dark sector style solar system.

 

2, I would make it so there would be no taxis or carrying, everyone could only progress via their own hard work

 

3, I would make it so each stella system must require the player to use everything in their armoury to progress, so mission restricted to particular frames and weapons and conclave would be possible

 

Basically every call for wf to be changed and items nerfed with its being global and disasterous implecations for some other players would instead be optional and this would allow for a larger choice and opportunity to try things out before throwing the old game away.

 

In terms of the implementation either a property based interface for limiting acceptable ingame variables on a per location basis or for a complex change a paid dialogue with the DE dev team.

 

This would give the best of all worlds literally and allow every idea to be tried out for viability and pleasure rather than forcing untested upon everyone else.

 

Once the parallel world has been completed and tested by the clan then it could be made availible as an extra solar event so everyone interested can have a go and have a vandalled weapon reward for completion.

Edited January 20, 2015 by LeMoog

[Kasumi-]

1, I would make it so that you could only reach these new stella systems via solar rail and that means being in a clan of more than one person and the clans could set the rules within their Dark sector style solar system.

 

3, I would make it so each stella system must require the player to use everything in their armoury to progress, so mission restricted to particular frames and weapons and conclave would be possible

 

1.) More clan-managed stuff? No. Never. Have you seen Dark Sectors? Expanding that anywhere at all is a horrible idea.

 

3.) Here's how I see this:

 

"Ok, can't do that node cause I don't have that weapon"

"Or that one. Don't have that frame."

"Great. Now I can't progress."

"I have the frame/weapon(s) and now my conclave is too high. Still can't do it."

[Dawn11715]

As there is no downvote button, im gonna leave you this: 

Edited January 20, 2015 by Dawn11715

[LeMoog]

1.) More clan-managed stuff? No. Never. Have you seen Dark Sectors? Expanding that anywhere at all is a horrible idea.

 

3.) Here's how I see this:

 

"Ok, can't do that node cause I don't have that weapon"

"Or that one. Don't have that frame."

"Great. Now I can't progress."

"I have the frame/weapon(s) and now my conclave is too high. Still can't do it."

 

The idea about Dark Sectors would be to limit the number of alternative worlds so they would still fit on the map, each world would pay resources to the clan and would be availible to players who had made progress as an extrasolar link for a limited time after the dark sector changed hands so they could complete if wanted but to keep it the active world then they would have to fight in the darksector conflict to maintain it.

 

As too:

 <

"Ok, can't do that node cause I don't have that weapon"

"Or that one. Don't have that frame."

"Great. Now I can't progress."

"I have the frame/weapon(s) and now my conclave is too high. Still can't do it."

>

The people who want change are presumably dissatisfied with wf as it is, this would allow them the opportunity to change wf without it being forced upon the people who disagreed with their idea. Additionally as these worlds would all be required to be harder in someways than the standard set then it would give an additional challenge for the bored without having DE devs to implement it every time. The majority of their changes could be implemented via a new interface in the dojo observation room with a drop down dialogue of frame/weapon/conclave restricitons on locations and another in the oracle for AI modification. Not only would this give the clan its own project but also change these rooms to something other than eye candy

 

Given that the majority of the world would be the same and only resources and restrictions being altered then the meta data for their parallel world could be saved in their dojo and tried and tested by the clan prior to being released. If people liked their rule set then they could vote with their feet by playing the clan world over the original. Additionally if they wanted the world to continue to be availible to everyone then they would have to fight for the dark sector to keep control rather than just an easy post about changing everything because they have gotten bored.

Edited January 20, 2015 by LeMoog

[DoomFruit]

I like this idea. Ball up the tax and the nerfs together and throw them into a dark corner never to be seen again.

[Repligon]

I miss you, downvote button.

[Liminal]

Or, seeing as any nerf (and buff) is approved by DE, put the unbalanced stuff in a "dark sector" and keep updating the game as they see fit.

[Innocent_Flower]

This is genuinely the only 'solution' I've read that's worse than keeping things the way they are. 

Edited January 20, 2015 by Innocent_Flower

[LeMoog]

Or, seeing as any nerf (and buff) is approved by DE, put the unbalanced stuff in a "dark sector" and keep updating the game as they see fit.

 

The idea was that the people who want to change the world can have their chance buff or nerf and the playing community can show and vote if they like it, DE obviously want to please their public but given that not everyone bothers with the forum how can they say they are pleasing anything other than a minority of players.

 

This way DE would get feedback from the players as they play and not just the vocal ones on the forums, everyone gets a vote and the idea it tried and tested without tying DE devs up trying to implement the next great idea of the same minority.

 

What isnt there to like?

Edited January 20, 2015 by LeMoog

[Bobtm]

So... you want the game to become an unbalanced wreck while also having it become a homogenous chore to actively play?  Effectively everything said here is nothing short of terrible, most of these are catastrophically bad changes which provide no potential gain of any kind atop being a gigantic waste of time.

 

For the whole nerf thing, this is something everyone needs to learn sooner or later.  Nerfs are a necessary part of proper game design, there are things that will be added and then found, in hindsight, to have been given too much powerful so that they offset the game's balance model.  A lot of people who don't know what they're talking about will of course shout "just buff everything" which is pretty much the worst possible solution.

 

On that exact note;  A lot of folks who are the exact ones to call for all buffs for everything don't like Nullifiers at all.  Only reason Nullifiers exist is explicitly because of a successive "buff everything" trend.  Our powers were and still are out of control, DE wanted to reign them in, the community had a space cow.  Since reasonable nerfing is out of the question now, the only option is buffing, buffing the enemies to hard counter absurdity.  Nullifiers in a nutshell.

 

Balancing changes are best implemented for the whole community specifically so DE can see how they impact play across the whole community.  Even players who don't speak out on the forums are noted as data, it's not like DE doesn't have metrics which they can measure across the board and see.  Player feedback in forum form is a mixed bag, some valid and usable and others not so much.  Data however is pretty much always useful in some form.

 

Further still the very core of this "stella system" concept acts as nothing more than a way to fragment the playerbase in a major way.  This even moreso than other suggestions have in the past, you'd be shattering the actively available playerbase into dust.

     _____________________

 

Anyways going back to the meat of the issue at hand, players who call for nerfs being effectively "against" those on your side who enjoy unbalanced content.  This part sucks I assure you, but it isn't an opinion, it's just the truth of things.  There's no solution to get us off your back, we will always call for the nerfing of unbalanced content because of what it causes at the fundamental design level of a given game.  Our side of this coin sees unbalanced content almost akin to a virus which must be expunged, lest its effects spread throughout the game in a negative manner which eventually leads to the ruination of a given game.

 

The ever popular "don't like it don't use it" thing is nothing more than a fallacy which only ignores the underlying issue.  Game designers create content, not so it can be blown through without thought, but so it can allow players to actively play it.  If there's an unbalanced outlier suddenly this becomes impossible.  Balance the content for the overpowered outlier and now the game becomes insta-hard mode for everything not in that top 1%, hard limiting potential build options and destroying player choice.  Balance for the rest of the game's content and now those using said overpowered gear can insta-win any new content.

 

That latter part of the situation then leads to a cyclical issue which is almost poetically funny.  The players using overpowered junk will almost without fail begin whining about a lack of challenge.  Of course if the developers try and nerf their outliers they'll instantly throw a tantrum over it... declaring that they should just buff the entire game to revolve around their items rather than nerfing their items for a myriad of reasons.  "It'll ruin my investment, nerfs are always bad, don't like it don't use it, if everything is buffed then everyone is happy" and a laundry list of other short-sighted and outright false claims.

 

If looked at in a bubble (damage only, no mechanics), let's just say someone goes through the difficult and time consuming task of buffing literally everything in a given game, both player gear and enemy values, to match the overpowered content.  Where are we then?  We're right at the same place potentially where we'd be if they'd have merely nerfed the outlier to begin with.  Of course that can only happen if we're lucky and things are overpowered in a specifically numerical manner, if they've got overpowered mechanics then the entire game risks becoming a broken mess.

 

Advocating against necessary and mindful nerfs doesn't help anyone in the long run at all.  Sure it can be a bit off-putting at times to see something you actively use take a hit to its power, but how much of a hit was it really?  I genuinely cannot think of a single nerf which wasn't totally warranted across all that have happened thus far in Warframe.  DE is pretty conservative when it comes to nerfing overpowered gear.

[LeMoog]

@bobtm first off which sucessful online game did you write?

 

I ask this as you keep talking about what everyone knows and how things in games are but my experience in games is clearly somewhat different to yours.

 

"Nerfs are a necessary part of proper game design", since when? Normally a game dev will strike the balance that they think the game needs, there are not usually any further changes unless the game moves into a new market. Why is everyone here second guessing DE, why would anyone want to nerf a weapon in WF, if you don't like it dont use it why break it for everyone else just because you have a problem.

 

"There's no solution to get us off your back" what exactly are you saying here? that this is some sort of competition of who can break wf the best? I am saying dont second guess DE until you have written your own quality online game, until then you opinion is only as good as the next online gamer. The Nerf and Buff rubbish is taking up DE time that woul dbe better spent fixing bugs and adding content, instead DE are wasting their time listening to people who think they know better about how to make a game than they do.

 

"Balancing changes are best implemented for the whole community" again says who? I say DE have a much better idea about the balance they want in WF than anyone else and akin to prohibition removing something once it has been accepted it worse than leaving it alone or never releasing it in the first place.

 

"nothing more than a way to fragment the playerbase in a major way", no there will be the game that DE made and then the modifications to that game for the bored and dissatisfied. The majority of WF players are happy with the game as it is however the minority are the ones causing all the changes, changes that impact people who were quite happy with things the way they were until someone who likes his own voice decided they knew what was best.

 

"but it isn't an opinion, it's just the truth of things" proof?

 

"Advocating against necessary and mindful nerfs doesn't help anyone in the long run at all" pure opinion?

 

I did manage to wade through your wall but in answers to your whole post

 

1,What makes you think you know better than DE about what is balanced, once DE put it in then is should be left alone unless there is a complete balance review

 

2,WF is not a player versus player hence the AI never complains that the players are OP, only the players do any complaining at all and it is all based upon opinion.

 

3, DE are IMHO spending far too much time rebalancing the weapons to cater to a small loud minority who just cant leave things alone and like to think they know more than DE about game mechanics.

 

Let DE get on with the important stuff that has needed fixing for months and dont keep wasting their time with left a bit, left a bit, no too far.

Edited January 20, 2015 by LeMoog

[vaugahn]

Okay, seriously. This whole "nerfs are unquestionably bad, buffs are unquestionably good" thing is unhealthy. Do you want the game to eventually be in any acceptable sort of balance? Then sooner or later, something is going to get nerfed. Get over it.

Nerfs are just as important as buffs when creating balance. Neither one is bad or good.

And if you honestly think DE shouldn't even bother with balance, well, don't bother trying to talk about balance then. That opinion is worth nothing in a balance discussion.

[LeMoog]

Okay, seriously. This whole "nerfs are unquestionably bad, buffs are unquestionably good" thing is unhealthy. Do you want the game to eventually be in any acceptable sort of balance? Then sooner or later, something is going to get nerfed. Get over it.

Nerfs are just as important as buffs when creating balance. Neither one is bad or good.

And if you honestly think DE shouldn't even bother with balance, well, don't bother trying to talk about balance then. That opinion is worth nothing in a balance discussion.

 

No, I am saying that DE know much more about balancing content than anyone else in these forums

 

I am saying that those player who want to second guess DE with their "expert" opinions should just let DE do what they are good at and the players should just play and not pretend they have a clue about the balance DE is working towards.

 

The idea of allowing all the dissatisfied an area to test out their ideas will hopefully enlighten them about exactly how hard it is to strike a decent balance without removing the usability of existing content. Lots of good weapons were effectively removed as useful items because some people felt that they needed a nerf, the buff side is another question by itself. Should all weapons be effectively of equal power or should their be a progression from the weapons you start the game with onto the ones you work to obtain and should some be worth the effort they took to obtain.

 

If all weapons are balanced then why bother having any but the ones you started with and then the rest can be removed and save on install footprint,  alternatively you can have what has been called "OP" weapons that are difficult to obtain. These "OP" weapons are the ones that people buy and work to obtain so the owner can be seen as someone who has put the time in, follow the balance path and remove any effective difference between the weapons and trade and DE sales disappear and the game goes with it.

 

Lots of people forget that whilst this is a "free to play" it doest mean that the DE staff work for nothing nor that hosting the services and third parties like Black Lotus are all doing this for free. It all costs in the real world and that means DE needs money or the game stops being availible, so this talk of balancing everything is a good way to kill WF and to be honest I think the "nerf it" crowd know it and are doing this on purpose.

 

Remember this isnt player v player, the AI isnt going to complain and if the players feel it is too easy they already have the tools to resolve that without changing the game for everyone else.

 

I just want to know that when I invest time in maxing out an item that someone else isnt going to make all my work worthless and pointless.

Edited January 20, 2015 by LeMoog

[Innocent_Flower]

1,What makes you think you know better than DE about what is balanced, once DE put it in then is should be left alone unless there is a complete balance review

 

2,WF is not a player versus player hence the AI never complains that the players are OP, only the players do any complaining at all and it is all based upon opinion.

 

3, DE are IMHO spending far too much time rebalancing the weapons to cater to a small loud minority who just cant leave things alone and like to think they know more than DE about game mechanics.

 

1- The numerous balancing failures made (or not made) by DE give a good indication of their ability to balance. Not trying to bash DE: but you can't deny that there are loads of balancing mistakes in there. 

 

2:

Part 1: there is PVP. (and the ai wouldn't complain if it were PVP) 

 Part 2: PVE can be competitive as well as co-operative. 

Part 3: enjoyment is a subjective thing. Everything is based on opinion. (also, who else would be complaining, if not the players? Their children? The government of Taiwan? Eh?)  

 

3: DE aren't spending enough time balancing because of a small loud minority plaguing the forums with protests against any reasonable request for change or progress that doesn't make them more powerful. 

[LeMoog]

1- The numerous balancing failures made (or not made) by DE give a good indication of their ability to balance. Not trying to bash DE: but you can't deny that there are loads of balancing mistakes in there. 

 

2:

Part 1: there is PVP. (and the ai wouldn't complain if it were PVP) 

 Part 2: PVE can be competitive as well as co-operative. 

Part 3: enjoyment is a subjective thing. Everything is based on opinion. (also, who else would be complaining, if not the players? Their children? The government of Taiwan? Eh?)  

 

3: DE aren't spending enough time balancing because of a small loud minority plaguing the forums with protests against any reasonable request for change or progress that doesn't make them more powerful. 

 

1, You are assuming that DE did not make the weapons intentionally potent

 

2, The PvP, conclave and Dark Sector conflict would I think be agreed to be extra to the normal WF game.

 

3, I never said buff or nerf anything, I am saying let DE make the decision based upon what they think the game needs to survive. DE need to make money by selling virtual items to pay for all of this and if the items are increasingly potent then that is to be expected, I am sure DE will make the enemy more potent in return. It doesn't require anyone to remove my content because they think they know what the game needs better than DE.

 

Lets be fair, there are lots of people on this forum who just do not understand that without money WF dies, new weapons mean money for DE and desired weapons are the bread and butter and infact the very life of this game.

[(PSN)WiiConquered]

 

If all weapons are balanced then why bother having any

How about playstyles? A basic rifle like Braton vs a machine gun like Soma vs an AoE chaingun Amprex vs Torid vs Penta vs Synapse vs Paris...

Also, different weapons are more helpful to different builds. For example, my Torid goes well with damage frames as it provides crowd control, while my Paris Prime is more helpful for CC frames as it allows them to pick off isolated targets.

[(PSN)WiiConquered]

1, You are assuming that DE did not make the weapons intentionally potent

Thats's why the Gammacors went from garbage to a tier above everything else in about a week. That's why it took so long to fix the Torid. That's why the high MR, clantech Embolist is garbage. They definitely wanted it like this.

2, The PvP, conclave and Dark Sector conflict would I think be agreed to be extra to the normal WF game.

As of this year, according to the Devstream, it's a priority. Also, you didn't understand "PVE can be competitive..." because it can. Besides, you shouldn't have to be dead weight to a team for not using the Boltor Prime.

3, I never said buff or nerf anything, I am saying let DE make the decision based upon what they think the game needs to survive. DE need to make money by selling virtual items to pay for all of this and if the items are increasingly potent then that is to be expected, I am sure DE will make the enemy more potent in return. It doesn't require anyone to remove my content because they think they know what the game needs better than DE.

So DE has decided they made some mistakes with balance (because they change stats), and they have a feedback focused website to help them collect what people think they should do, and they listen to that feedback, but you're upset because we create it?

DE's not perfect. Let's be honest, they created Star Trek: The Game. They aren't infallable, and they know that. Which is why they listen to our feedback.

Lets be fair, there are lots of people on this forum who just do not understand that without money WF dies, new weapons mean money for DE and desired weapons are the bread and butter and infact the very life of this game.

Yeah, I bet they make more money by making the majority of their weapons worthless due to a chosen few...

Edited January 20, 2015 by (PS4)WiiConquered

[LeMoog]

How about playstyles? A basic rifle like Braton vs a machine gun like Soma vs an AoE chaingun Amprex vs Torid vs Penta vs Synapse vs Paris...

Also, different weapons are more helpful to different builds. For example, my Torid goes well with damage frames as it provides crowd control, while my Paris Prime is more helpful for CC frames as it allows them to pick off isolated targets.

 

I agree, lots of different weapons are a good thing they allow WF to keep going more than a hundred events and are much cheaper to produce, I am saying lets allow weapons to be potent for those that want them and weak for those that don't.

 

The ones who want to nerf player items are removing both the items benefit to me and my choice to use a potent weapon if I wish, DE has added things like bombards to the void to make things harder or more accurately to promote the new frames and weapons and this too is good.

 

We have controlled and planned change if DE do it rather than seasawing due to those players who think they understand what they are spounting.

 

I am not against variety though and that is why I say make a place for this malcontents so they can try out their idea before forcing it on the rest of us, let them create something rather then take it away.

[LeMoog]

Thats's why the Gammacors went from garbage to a tier above everything else in about a week. That's why it took so long to fix the Torid. That's why the high MR, clantech Embolist is garbage. They definitely wanted it like this.

 

 

As of this year, according to the Devstream, it's a priority. Also, you didn't understand "PVE can be competitive..." because it can. Besides, you shouldn't have to be dead weight to a team for not using the Boltor Prime.

 

So DE has decided they made some mistakes with balance (because they change stats), and they have a feedback focused website to help them collect what people think they should do, and they listen to that feedback, but you're upset because we create it?

DE's not perfect. Let's be honest, they created Star Trek: The Game. They aren't infallable, and they know that. Which is why they listen to our feedback.

Lets be fair, there are lots of people on this forum who just do not understand that without money WF dies, new weapons mean money for DE and desired weapons are the bread and butter and infact the very life of this game.

Yeah, I bet they make more money by making the majority of their weapons worthless due to a chosen few...

 

 

I think DE have a lot on their plate, most people who play wf leave and the ones that stay are forever demanding new content like it costs nothing.

 

So I think it is possible that DE are knee jerking to the rhythm of a few who crave attention and I am suffering because of it, this is what I hope to stop. I would like all the people who want to change something actually trial it themselves before they shout it at DE, I would like in effect a filter so DE are only bothered with the stuff that matters so they have more time to deal with the issue which have been outstanding for so long that WF is called bugframe by many on the net.

 

I would be quite happy to see more fixes than additional content for a time, after all it is a new year for WF and it would be nice to see the back of last years bugs.

 

f you had the chance to set all the properties of the locations and AI can anyone say they wouldnt have a go with it just to see what it would be like with various different configurations.

 

for the record I am not saying DE are perfect I am saying that too many cooks spoil the broth, especially when the "community" ones have trouble with making toast

Edited January 20, 2015 by LeMoog

[vaugahn]

I am saying that those player who want to second guess DE with their "expert" opinions should just let DE do what they are good at and the players should just play and not pretend they have a clue about the balance DE is working towards.

 

So then please tell me what the point of a feedback forum is?

[Kasumi-]

Just wanna put this out there:

 

While I disagree with the concept, I appreciate the fact that you want to help make the game better.

 

As much as that matters coming from a random.

[Innocent_Flower]

Just wanna put this out there:

 

While I disagree with the concept, I appreciate the fact that you want to help make the game better.

 

As much as that matters coming from a random.

He's a troll. And objectively bad/misleading feedback is the worst kind. Worse than no feedback at all. 

[(PSN)WiiConquered]

He's a troll. And objectively bad/misleading feedback is the worst kind. Worse than no feedback at all.

He's not a troll, just someone who disagrees about the direction the game should take.

[Bobtm]

 @bobtm first off which sucessful online game did you write?

 

I ask this as you keep talking about what everyone knows and how things in games are but my experience in games is clearly somewhat different to yours.

 

"Nerfs are a necessary part of proper game design", since when? Normally a game dev will strike the balance that they think the game needs, there are not usually any further changes unless the game moves into a new market. Why is everyone here second guessing DE, why would anyone want to nerf a weapon in WF, if you don't like it dont use it why break it for everyone else just because you have a problem.

 

That... that is the best way to start a poor arguement.  One doesn't need to be a designer of something to have a core understanding of it, ask folks in numerous fields when reguarding a myriad of hobbies.  So for the first part, I've not designed any game ever.  I have however been an immensely nerdy kid who grew into a somehow even more nerdy adult who's been gaming (too much) for over twenty years.  But I was never satisfied with the basics or even winning, even as a tot I always had a penchant for wantind to discover everything about a game, even had VHS tapes of behind the scenes of game design stuff.  People talking about things that went way over my head, but I learned a lot and that trend stuck.

 

I've seen a lot of games go by, some failing, some succeeding, others setting and chilling in mediocrity and being happy to be there.  One trend which can definitely be noted is the following, based of course on actual sales information and active play data;  The best, highest selling, and most played of all games have very clear balance, set rules, and some form of skill based play.  There legitimately aren't any games topping the charts that boil down to absurd power fantasies which allow players to be grossely overpowered.

 

While I'm not a designer myself, I'm pretty darn knowledgable about how game design works, both the actuality of it and the ideology behind it.  Additionally I took some time to learn coding for a while as well.  I'm sure as hell not anything beyond novice at it of course, but I like that it broadened my scope of understanding within this realm.

 

It's well known that all people are capable of mistakes, beyond that dev teams are infinitely smaller than their active playerbases assuming their game has any degree of success.  This part is also important, Warframe is a game that is in beta, and is in active and continual development.  DE takes enough time to ensure things aren't woefully broken, then ships out what they've got for us to enjoy and test out.  We players, especially so on the PC side are the testers.  This is of course not to say we know better by any sense, we give them a nudge in what direction needs taken then they act upon it with their ability.  Overtime, between the occurance of both buffs and nerfs when needed, the game's balance can become apparent.

 

This difference in understanding and ideology is because gamers are generally short-sighted about these things, they don't actually realize what it is they enjoy about gaming.  Most will assume they want to be more powerful than everything to the point where failure is removed as a potential outcome.  Of course this is nothing but a fallacy, even these players will eventually tire of "playing god" and just quit whatever game it is they're romping through in search of something else to actually provide them with a form of challenge.  This isn't of course to say that all games should be insanely hard, that's just a screwed up thing to say.

 

Obviously I don't fall into that above category, same is true for everyone in the pro-nerf crowd.  They see how things actually are in the reality of the situation.

 

What it boils down to is this;  All games are, at their very core, puzzles.  The best of them are the ones which provide players with a way to think about what is set before them, while allowing for numerous solutions but still not allowing for infinite solutions.

 

If you can win by bypassing the gameplay (being overpowered) that's a recipe for disaster.  Especially moreso when the game is grind focused as its inherent progression.  This progression style actually incentivizes "win buttons" to the point where even people who know better will fall prey to using them in many cases and it's a very toxic thing which can lead to the inevitable downfall of a given game.  Gee, now how does that sound familiar?  coughrepfarmscouch

 

Beyond that, the "don't like it don't use it" arguement when dealing with overpowered gear is the opposite of an answer.  I'll cover this later on in this postwall of reply-itory answerness.

 

The extra short version;  People don't want to play games where they always win forever.  <- Fact

 

 "There's no solution to get us off your back" what exactly are you saying here? that this is some sort of competition of who can break wf the best? I am saying dont second guess DE until you have written your own quality online game, until then you opinion is only as good as the next online gamer. The Nerf and Buff rubbish is taking up DE time that woul dbe better spent fixing bugs and adding content, instead DE are wasting their time listening to people who think they know better about how to make a game than they do.

 

"Balancing changes are best implemented for the whole community" again says who? I say DE have a much better idea about the balance they want in WF than anyone else and akin to prohibition removing something once it has been accepted it worse than leaving it alone or never releasing it in the first place.

"Advocating against necessary and mindful nerfs doesn't help anyone in the long run at all" pure opinion?

 

You don't see it this way, and I'm sure even all my explanations won't change that, but nerfs just need to happen.  DE understands this, those of us on the pro-nerf side understand this, your side however does not.  If too many folks speak out against nerfs however a given developer will, at times, be hessitant to apply nerfs that may even be very much needed.

 

Now this results in a few possibilities, one is they just blatantly ignore the playerbase and nerf away.  The other is that they cave and won't nerf what needs it.  Both of these things are very bad, which is why as I said "Advocating against necessary nerfs is bad." to paraphrase.  Basically, our side won't leave nor will we quit calling for nerfs where we see them as needed.  "We won't get off your back."

 

As a reference point, Gearbox Software, the developers of Borderlands went with the first option.  They pretty much don't communicate with their playerbase at all anymore.  They stick to nerfing what needs it and not even trying to explain it to their community as they found it to be a lost cause.  Last I checked, BL2 was a pretty large hit and still holds a modest degree of popularity to it after a few years' time.  It really sucks that they had to go this route, but there's a point where a choice must be made.

 

 1,What makes you think you know better than DE about what is balanced, once DE put it in then is should be left alone unless there is a complete balance review

 

2,WF is not a player versus player hence the AI never complains that the players are OP, only the players do any complaining at all and it is all based upon opinion.

 

3, DE are IMHO spending far too much time rebalancing the weapons to cater to a small loud minority who just cant leave things alone and like to think they know more than DE about game mechanics.

 

Let DE get on with the important stuff that has needed fixing for months and dont keep wasting their time with left a bit, left a bit, no too far.

 

1)  That's just a straight assumption there, I don't believe that I know balancing better than DE.  However what I do have is other information, we, as a collective playerbase have much more time to test out weaponry and tell them how it fares within their game.  They have the knowledge of where they wish a weapon to be as far as its "tier" and they basically don't tell us this.  Basically, we provide information and they act upon it using their understanding of balance.  That's how a beta works.

 

2)  Both PvP and PvE games need balance, of course they cater to different styles of balance.  For instance, I'm good with an automatic rifle existing that is within the top "tier" in terms of viability at endgame.  This is because of how primarily PvE Warframe is.  In PvP games you will rarely if ever see situations where fast firing auto weapons are the best statistically, because they're blatantly easier to use.  The balance of power versus ease of use favors the skilled players in a primarily PvP game.  That type of balance isn't needed in PvE, and I make a point of never advocating for it because of that.  Of course I'm the type who personally hates automatic weapons because they are "mindless" and easy.  But preferences shouldn't apply when talking about balance.

 

3)  This is the kicker here, and the most important part.  You know that one thing players are clamoring for in Warframe (aside lore)?  Endgame, good ol endgame.

 

Well guess what, a developer cannot create an appropriate, mindful, and worthwhile endgame in a game where there is a wealth of unbalanced content.  It is literally impossible to accomplish this task because you can't split focus on how to create this content without excluding the playerbase in some major way, or allowing the "cheesing" of said content.  Basically this is likely why the endgame we all want has taken so long to get here.  Right now Warframe's balance, or lack thereof, prevents us from having an endgame.

 

If you balance around the majority content, ignoring the overpowered outliers, then any player using these outliers now can steamroll the endgame.  Invalidating the existence of said endgame in its entirety.

 

If you balance around the overpowered content, ignoring the majority items, then any player who wishes to play the endgame is forced to utilize overpowered gear.  Invalidating the whole concept of build and weapon choice in its entirety.

 

As noted before, this is exactly why "don't like it don't use it" is not and will never be a valid arguement.  Overpowered outliers prevent the active development of meaningful content.  In another light, overpowered weapons are so grossly overpowered that they actually break the game itself as it's trying to exist.

 

If we want better content, we'll have to wait for the grounds to be laid out proper for it.  Luckily I have a lot of faith in DE.  They've made mistakes sure, and they're not quickdraw fast at balancing changes, but I trust them.  If I didn't, I would've quit this game long ago instead of having stayed around for over a year's time.

 

DE is good peeps.

 

And to wrap this all up;

 

 I did manage to wade through your wall but in answers to your whole post

 

That thing before wasn't a wall oh no.  This, is a wall.

Edit;  There's always at least one two typos isn't there?

Edited January 21, 2015 by Bobtm

[LeMoog]

okay to make things easier I will rephrase the salient points

 

1, Once a ingame item is released then it should be neither buffed or nerfed. Those players who pay for items buy something based upon its use/value to them, those the grind do so for the same reason. Changing that item's properties away from what what the player wanted is IMHO making it so this game no longer has what I want.

 

2, Having a seperate area where the interested community can beta test content in advance of general release can help with point 1 and allow those wishing to experiement with the game dynamics a wider WF world than currently envisioned by DE. If DE really invested in this concept then they could include a full set of MODDING tools and pave the way to the true open community content that made games such half life and counterstrike the spring board to future developement and new games.

 

3, Feedback should not be bug fixes and nerf/buff would be better in the appropriate forum not here were players should be posting about future additions to the wf world not breaking what is already there. Feedback should be about what DE are getting right and wrong and be in effect a way to tell DE what we want to see and reply to the Devstream.

 

4, Balance should not ever be knee jerk it should always take into account the fact that players that have invested in this game and its content are going to be annoyed when their efforts are devalued. DE and the WF community are both acting against their own best interests and I would say that the nerf/buff "fix" has resulted in even more unbalance weapons being added and then trashed after people have invested in them. This needs to stop no more adding content without testing no more just lobbing stuff out there and fixing it later.

 

This is my game too and this perpetual interferance with the items once they have been releaed into the wild means that I am holding items that have become devalued to the point of uselessness and IMHO DE is relying upon this nerf/buff and using it to get quick sales of the latest kit before allowing the community to take the blaim for nerfing it to uselessness.

 

I say it is more than time for DE to either balance kit before release or allow the interested community the tools for them to test it for them, I am sick and tired of wasting my time maxing something only for its value to me to be removed. Either make new content fit/work or don't release it at all is what I say and having a seperate area and the tools to create content allows the community to fix WF before the problem happens and to prevent me wasting my time maxing somehting that should never have been released as was

Edited January 21, 2015 by LeMoog